Mistyped TypeCentral Members

[draon9]

Estp ti both but I feel a gamma vibe

 

[draon9]

What kind of arguments are more likely to convince you that something is true, assuming that you have good reason to doubt the truth:

1) A large set of statistical data confirming the correlations of things?
2) A theoretical model with specific examples of how things work?

(And no, this is NOT comparing what you think it's comparing, it's not S vs N ... just be honest with your answer.)

I have a question, so you say I am se fi or fi se, whys that if I was esfp, I would have strong fi

 

[uumlau]

Well, personally I think that 1 would be more likely to convince me that something is true because 2 doesn't make much sense to me. It just shows you how things work, not the actual proof that X has worked over Y. 2 explains the concept, 1 finalizes and defines the concept with proof.

Part of what I'm getting at is "correlation is not causation" vs "anecdotes aren't conclusive".

Ni/Se types tend to need narratives, stories, anecdotes. Even the TJs: knowing the workflow of something is more important than having a bunch of statistics about it. Ni/Se types aren't as apt to be convinced by statistics, because raw data doesn't necessarily show the underlying phenomenon.

Ne/Si types tend to require far-reaching data looking for correlations. When there are a lot of data points, it's really convincing, even if the statistical methods are kind of questionable.

Not that this is conclusive either way, but I wanted you to have your honest answer before I explained what I was getting at. Does a "story" or a "workflow" or a "dynamic" explain things better to you, or does lots of statistical data explain things better to you?

...

An example of what I'm getting at could be the economic talking heads back in 2005, a few years before the housing bubble burst. Some completely trusted the data, and the data said that all the market indications were "good": all the numbers that needed to be up were up, and the fundamentals were good. Others, however, saw the bubble easily. It's easy to see market bubbles as stories: people have easy credit, people with easy credit are buying houses, and even more people with easy credit are buying houses from those people, and so on. It's obvious that it's all going to come crashing down, but you can't quite predict when, but just that it will. You can see the bubble coming in spite of the market indicators disagreeing with you.

(Of course, that puts the story/narrative perspective in a good light, but it's fairly easy to see how lots of data is good and that most anecdotes/narratives are rather naive, so I chose the former to illustrate.)

 

[Captain_Invincible]

Part of what I'm getting at is "correlation is not causation" vs "anecdotes aren't conclusive".

Ni/Se types tend to need narratives, stories, anecdotes. Even the TJs: knowing the workflow of something is more important than having a bunch of statistics about it. Ni/Se types aren't as apt to be convinced by statistics, because raw data doesn't necessarily show the underlying phenomenon.

Ne/Si types tend to require far-reaching data looking for correlations. When there are a lot of data points, it's really convincing, even if the statistical methods are kind of questionable.

Not that this is conclusive either way, but I wanted you to have your honest answer before I explained what I was getting at. Does a "story" or a "workflow" or a "dynamic" explain things better to you, or does lots of statistical data explain things better to you?

...

An example of what I'm getting at could be the economic talking heads back in 2005, a few years before the housing bubble burst. Some completely trusted the data, and the data said that all the market indications were "good": all the numbers that needed to be up were up, and the fundamentals were good. Others, however, saw the bubble easily. It's easy to see market bubbles as stories: people have easy credit, people with easy credit are buying houses, and even more people with easy credit are buying houses from those people, and so on. It's obvious that it's all going to come crashing down, but you can't quite predict when, but just that it will. You can see the bubble coming in spite of the market indicators disagreeing with you.

(Of course, that puts the story/narrative perspective in a good light, but it's fairly easy to see how lots of data is good and that most anecdotes/narratives are rather naive, so I chose the former to illustrate.)

Oh no... I'm lost now.
Sometimes I know things are going to collapse/breakdown/something is going to happen from nowhere. Sometimes from following the clues (symbollically/psychically). I look at both sides arguments before making a judgement when I can. One side argues this is good, the other side doesn't, when I am listening to an argument. I use whatever evidence is the most researched and closest to the truth when deciding. And when I make an argument, I plan it ahead, before a debate and refine it as much as I possibly can.

I do like stories. I do like dynamics and knowing the rhythmn of things, and I do like working to that rhythmn, but I also like statistics to back things up when I have to. If that makes sense?

 

[Totenkindly]

I don't really agree on the house bubble story -- I'm pretty clearly Ne/Si, but I instinctively saw it as a bubble that would burst because of the big-picture narrative.

So while those are two valid "camps," I am not sure you have distinguished between them correctly in terms of functions. I tend to see them as raw data vs data patterning differences, not Ni vs Ne.

 

[EJCC]

Yeah, when I first read the initial question (pre-elaboration), my first instinct was "I prefer anecdotes, but what person in their rational mind would reject accurate statistics?"

 

[Jaguar]

Yeah, when I first read the initial question (pre-elaboration), my first instinct was "I prefer anecdotes, but what person in their rational mind would reject accurate statistics?"

Ahem. How do you know what is, and what is not, "accurate"?

 

[Totenkindly]

Data, data, everywhere, and not a drop to think...

 

[Jaguar]

Here comes a T-type shit storm.

 

[EJCC]

Ahem. How do you know what is, and what is not, "accurate"?

Damn, Jag, I was hoping I wouldn't have to play my SJ card here (because it isn't super relevant to the discussion of CI's type, since CI is clearly not an SJ):

- Where the data came from (diverse enough sources? potential biases? where?)
- How the methodology measures up to ideal statistics/data-collection methodology
- If I don't care enough to look into the study in great deal, then: how do a variety of trusted scientific sources think this measures up? What are the issues that they see?

 

[Jaguar]

Damn, Jag, I was hoping I wouldn't have to play my SJ card here (because it isn't super relevant to the discussion of CA's type, since CA is clearly not an SJ):

- If I don't care enough to look into the study in great deal, then: how do a variety of trusted scientific sources think this measures up? What are the issues that they see?

Trusted scientific sources. There's an oxymoron. What makes a source trusted - who is taking the least money under the table? Simply because they have M.D. after their name? What? I look beneath the surface of everything. Including "trusted sources."

 

[uumlau]

Yeah, it's just a theory I've been bouncing around in my head. There are times when I know exactly what I'm talking about, and I can explain it in an anecdotal way to convey my understanding of the inner workings, and some people are like "OK, that makes sense" and others are like "What's your proof?" and require sources, authority, etc.

Both levels of reasoning are valuable, but some people tend to lean very much towards one or the other, and can only be budged by one style of reasoning. In my experience, this would SEEM to line up with Ni/Se (stories/narratives/workflows) vs Ne/Si (lots of data that has a particular pattern). I'm not saying this is true, just an impression of mine.

Anyway, sorry for any confusion, I'm just looking for clues to help out the Captain.

 

[EJCC]

Trusted scientific sources. There's an oxymoron. What makes a source trusted - who is taking the least money under the table? Simply because they have M.D. after their name? What? I look beneath the surface of everything. Including "trusted sources."

I'm not a trained professional, so it would be ridiculous for me to think that I could judge these things better than they would. Even if I looked under the surface, who's to say that I would be able to judge that information with any degree of accuracy, relative to someone who has spent their entire life learning how to do it?

Again, SJ card. This is the way Si works.

 

[uumlau]

I'm not a trained professional, so it would be ridiculous for me to think that I could judge these things better than they would. Even if I looked under the surface, who's to say that I would be able to judge that information with any degree of accuracy, relative to someone who has spent their entire life learning how to do it?

Again, SJ card. This is the way Si works.

I think you and Jag might be making my Ni/Se vs Ne/Si point for me.

It's only one data point, of course.

 

[EJCC]

I think you and Jag might be making my Ni/Se vs Ne/Si point for me.

It's only one data point, of course.

Well, SJ vs NJ, anyway. I highly doubt that NPs would have the same thought process that I do -- the same trust in authority.

p.s. Congrats on your 4000th post in advance

 

[HongDou]

What makes him seem more 3-like than, let's say, me, or [MENTION=20829]Hard[/MENTION], or [MENTION=9310]uumlau[/MENTION], or tbh even [MENTION=5999]PeaceBaby[/MENTION]? We all have extremely strong 3 fixes that sometimes overpower our core, to the point of (on the forum anyway) seeming more 3 than any other type.

I've been meaning to come back to this, because I don't see you or any of these people strongly 3 at all. What makes you think you guys are strongly 3 compared to Disco, who to me seems still the most 3 out of any of these members?

 

[Captain_Invincible]

I highly doubt that NPs would have the same thought process that I do

I highly doubt any human entity has the same thought process as I do, or would want to have it, lol.

I was watching Southpaw, and I am pretty sure Billy Hope and his wife are different ends of the Ni-Se spectrum. Billy is the Se end, and Maureen is the Ni end.
[MENTION=4945]EJCC[/MENTION]

 

[EJCC]

I've been meaning to come back to this, because I don't see you or any of these people strongly 3 at all. What makes you think you guys are strongly 3 compared to Disco, who to me seems still the most 3 out of any of these members?

A VERY cool and collected presentation. Swooping into threads to show their expertise, then ducking back out again, with little to no vulnerability shown. Sweeping their weaknesses under the rug, or spinning them to make them look like strengths. Setbacks are spun to look like opportunities. No cracks in the facade.

(This applies much more to [MENTION=20829]Hard[/MENTION] IRL than on the forum -- much of the above doesn't apply to him here. The rest applies to the other folks I mentioned though. Myself included.)

 

[Bush]

p.s. Congrats on your 4000th post in advance

You're going to have to wait a while for this one. Make a good, insightful thread and foster around six pages of discussion. [MENTION=9310]uumlau[/MENTION] may pop into that thread.. with his 4000th post.

A VERY cool and collected presentation. Swooping into threads to show their expertise, then ducking back out again, with little to no vulnerability shown. Sweeping their weaknesses under the rug, or spinning them to make them look like strengths. Setbacks are spun to look like opportunities. No cracks in the facade.

Guilty. Sometimes I can't tell whether I'm being self-revealing or humblebragging.

 

[HongDou]

A VERY cool and collected presentation.

To me you seem more warm and tentative.

Swooping into threads to show their expertise, then ducking back out again, with little to no vulnerability shown.

I've noticed this about [MENTION=9310]uumlau[/MENTION], but with you and other members I always thought it was for other reasons, like wanting to help people find the correct path to follow, foster someone's self-understanding, etc.

Sweeping their weaknesses under the rug, or spinning them to make them look like strengths. Setbacks are spun to look like opportunities. No cracks in the facade.

Mhm, but you don't think Disco does this? Although I guess he's more open about fighting against setbacks and overcoming obstacles than navigating around them. His second reply got me more used to the idea of him being an 8.

Guilty. Sometimes I can't tell whether I'm being self-revealing or humblebragging.

I noticed both you and [MENTION=20829]Hard[/MENTION] have a habit of...idk how else to put it so I'm just gonna say sucking up to authority. I mean this in a 100% non-offensive way though. But do you think this could be something about being kindred ENFJ spirits? Or it could be sp influence trying to secure a safe place among the people who hold more power?